The Vice of Effeminacy (Aqunas)

[Aštra’el]

I will strive to be less “effeminate” as well (as you defined it).

Too often- even if it is much less compared to whoever- have I been aware of time passing by as I am overindulging in the pleasures of life, when I could be actively changing the world and reshaping it my image. And while part of me enjoys the gratification of those temporary pleasures and distractions- and the brief respite from stress and responsibility, in the back of my mind a part of me is tormented, because it is aware of everything else that could be done in that moment.

I am wholly aware of the distractions. I am aware of the chains, dragging me back into an abyss I fought so hard to escape from. It is a deception, telling me “this is worth my time because it feels good.” I am aware of the obstacles in the path before me standing in the way of my greatest dreams and ambitions... chaining me down, blinding me, tempting me to deny, to forget, to forsake and uncommit. I like to believe I am not so easily swayed, but I have been, at times.

Effiminacy, hedonism, whatever you wish to call it. It is an enemy of True Will, at least for me.

Let there less of that, and let there be more of our dreams becoming a reality.

 

[epronovost]

Wow. But those seem very different from the modern christian view don't they? Maybe just a little bit from here and there...

Christianity is an active religion with nearly 2000 years of history. There are a LOT of difference between Christians depending on the era and their school of thought. Today, a liberal Christian of a universalist denomination cannot be more different from a Puritan of 17th century England who lives in terror of witches and punish the act of dancing by 20 lashes. All active religions change as cultures and times changes else they would fall on the wayside.

 

[Glaurung]

Yes this is a curious thing. Historically, "effeminacy" has often meant, not being gay or anything like that, but being preoccupied with "soft" pleasures, such as fashion, food and drink, and luxuriating in the company of women.

It is quite easy to see how homosexuality is associated with effeminacy when you understand that the Romans held to disdain the man who received during sex. The Roman mentality held that being on the receiving end was not becoming of a man, but of women and slave boys. Of course the Christian mentality condemns even what the Romans did not. (Things like pederasty).

I don't understand; what is "good" and "moral softness" and "worthwhile"? Why is pleasure not part of that?

Pleasure is not itself a bad thing. Nonetheless, virtue requires its strict moderation. What is good for us in the long term is not always the same as what we may want in the short term.

I'm with the other posters questioning the use of "effeminate" to define something being implicitly asserted to be a negative (even in women I assume, or do they not matter?). I would have thought the word hedonism would work just as well (though maybe opening you to more establish philosophical counter-arguments).

Feminine traits (properly ordered) are good in women while masculine traits (again properly ordered) are good in men. And I know many on this forum won't like to hear that. As to effeminacy, it is called that because while both sexes ought to pursue the good over the pleasurable, the failure to do so is considered particularly defective in men. But yes, women are to cultivate perseverance as well.

Given they're all things you want to do, aren't they just different kinds of pleasures? Longer term and involving greater effort on your part but ultimately leading to pleasurable ends all the same.

Pleasure itself is not the problem. The problem is the inability to put short term pleasures aside to pursue what is good in the long run. The ultimate good of course being God.

In other words, instead of sitting back with a brewski and ESPN after work, much better to give yourself a good scourging and don a hair shirt.

Or perhaps instead to watching television it would be better to open a book, study something edifying, or perhaps interact with others in worthwhile conversation. Maybe work out even. Again, it's not that there should be no place for recreation, just that (mindless) recreation should be moderated. It's okay to play a video game. It is not okay to fret away an entire day before one though.

 

[The Hammer]

In colloquial language, an effeminate man is a man who too much exhibits traits associated with women. And while being overly feminine in temperament can be a sign of effeminacy, in the scholastic tradition this is not what the word is intended to mean.

According to Aquinas, effeminacy is the vice of forsaking the good due to an inordinate attachment to pleasure. In other words, it is moral softness caused by indulgence. It is the inability to put aside what is pleasurable and easy in order to pursue what is good and worthwhile. According to Aquinas, effeminacy is a vice and it is opposed to the virtue of perseverance.

I think effeminacy is underappreciated as a problem, even in Christian circles. Indeed, I recall one Catholic blog calling effeminacy a 'forgotten vice'. And it is easy to see why in our times of unprecedented entertainment and distraction. I know I have been guilty of it on more occasions than I would like to count. Instead of spending my time in edifying study, or taking up physical exercise, or putting aside time for prayer; I have instead wasted countless hours playing video games, watching YouTube videos or lounging around doing nothing. Even though it is always in my mind that at any given time I could be accomplishing something of value, I have often instead shrunk from such aspirations out of an immediate preference for what is easy and pleasurable in the moment. This according to the angelic doctor is effeminacy and it is unbecoming of a Christian.

As for me, as a belated New Years' resolution, I take it upon myself to stamp this vice out from my life as much as possible. I want to put my time to good and worthwhile use. And while that does not mean cutting out all recreation from my life it does mean no longer allowing it to swallow up all of my free time. I have aspirations to learn multiple languages, to learn to compose music, to improve my physical health and of course to improve my spiritual standing before God. But to do these things I have to be willing deal with toil. I have to be willing to forsake immediate pleasures.

It's called hedonism.

 

[epronovost]

It's called hedonism.

Not really no. Hedonism is way more complex than that too.

Hedonism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

It would be ridiculous to reduce hedonism to immediate pleasure-seeking habits.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Feminine traits (properly ordered) are good in women while masculine traits (again properly ordered) are good in men. And I know many on this forum won't like to hear that.

If you're talking about me than I have no problem with femininity in women or masculinity in men.
I have problems with some people's ideas of what constitutes 'well ordered.' In traditional western culture well ordered means masculinity *at the expense* of femininity. Femininity is seen as weak, masculinity as strong. Women are assumed to be weak and men who take on feminine traits are seen as especially vile. This is decidedly disordered and has lead to men being unable to emotionally process or nurture themselves and others while women vilify femininity to try and be accepted as equals by the men who still see them as inferior.

My view of 'well ordered' is a harmonious mix of femininity and masculinity in both men and women.

But I understand that's far afield of the intent of criticism of what I would describe as instant vs delayed gratification. But I think the objection to the term 'effeminate' isn't an unreasonable one.

 

[HonestJoe]

Feminine traits (properly ordered) are good in women while masculine traits (again properly ordered) are good in men.

That's a matter of opinion but it isn't what your OP says. It presents a "feminine trait" as being unconditionally bad, regardless of who is doing it. And I'd argue that it isn't even a particularly feminine trait in the first place.

As to effeminacy, it is called that because while both sexes ought to pursue the good over the pleasurable, the failure to do so is considered particularly defective in men.

Why though? If it's a bad thing, why isn't it equally bad for anyone?

Pleasure itself is not the problem. The problem is the inability to put short term pleasures aside to pursue what is good in the long run.

I can't disagree that is a problem, though I'd also argue for "everything in moderation" too. There is a risk of pushing too far the other way (or at least being perceived as doing that).

 

[Skywalker]

In colloquial language, an effeminate man is a man who too much exhibits traits associated with women. And while being overly feminine in temperament can be a sign of effeminacy, in the scholastic tradition this is not what the word is intended to mean.

According to Aquinas, effeminacy is the vice of forsaking the good due to an inordinate attachment to pleasure. In other words, it is moral softness caused by indulgence. It is the inability to put aside what is pleasurable and easy in order to pursue what is good and worthwhile. According to Aquinas, effeminacy is a vice and it is opposed to the virtue of perseverance.

I think effeminacy is underappreciated as a problem, even in Christian circles. Indeed, I recall one Catholic blog calling effeminacy a 'forgotten vice'. And it is easy to see why in our times of unprecedented entertainment and distraction. I know I have been guilty of it on more occasions than I would like to count. Instead of spending my time in edifying study, or taking up physical exercise, or putting aside time for prayer; I have instead wasted countless hours playing video games, watching YouTube videos or lounging around doing nothing. Even though it is always in my mind that at any given time I could be accomplishing something of value, I have often instead shrunk from such aspirations out of an immediate preference for what is easy and pleasurable in the moment. This according to the angelic doctor is effeminacy and it is unbecoming of a Christian.

As for me, as a belated New Years' resolution, I take it upon myself to stamp this vice out from my life as much as possible. I want to put my time to good and worthwhile use. And while that does not mean cutting out all recreation from my life it does mean no longer allowing it to swallow up all of my free time. I have aspirations to learn multiple languages, to learn to compose music, to improve my physical health and of course to improve my spiritual standing before God. But to do these things I have to be willing deal with toil. I have to be willing to forsake immediate pleasures.

i think people spending time doing things that aren't beneficial is neither ideal for men or women.

 

[Skywalker]

It is quite easy to see how homosexuality is associated with effeminacy when you understand that the Romans held to disdain the man who received during sex. The Roman mentality held that being on the receiving end was not becoming of a man, but of women and slave boys. Of course the Christian mentality condemns even what the Romans did not. (Things like pederasty).


Pleasure is not itself a bad thing. Nonetheless, virtue requires its strict moderation. What is good for us in the long term is not always the same as what we may want in the short term.


Feminine traits (properly ordered) are good in women while masculine traits (again properly ordered) are good in men. And I know many on this forum won't like to hear that. As to effeminacy, it is called that because while both sexes ought to pursue the good over the pleasurable, the failure to do so is considered particularly defective in men. But yes, women are to cultivate perseverance as well.


Pleasure itself is not the problem. The problem is the inability to put short term pleasures aside to pursue what is good in the long run. The ultimate good of course being God.


Or perhaps instead to watching television it would be better to open a book, study something edifying, or perhaps interact with others in worthwhile conversation. Maybe work out even. Again, it's not that there should be no place for recreation, just that (mindless) recreation should be moderated. It's okay to play a video game. It is not okay to fret away an entire day before one though.

I believe that video games are an example of things that are permissible but not beneficial.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I believe that video games are an example of things that are permissible but not beneficial.

Do you think they're less beneficial than other forms of recreation? If so, why?

 

[Skywalker]

Do you think they're less beneficial than other forms of recreation? If so, why?

A lot of video games like game of thrones are very unhealthy.

 

[PureX]

According to Aquinas, effeminacy is the vice of forsaking the good due to an inordinate attachment to pleasure. In other words, it is moral softness caused by indulgence. It is the inability to put aside what is pleasurable and easy in order to pursue what is good and worthwhile. According to Aquinas, effeminacy is a vice and it is opposed to the virtue of perseverance.

I find this observation very interesting, but it will take a little bit of explaining for me to convey, why ...

I was an AA sponsor for a young gay man some years ago. And although I am not gay, I had no problem with the fact that he was, or that he was somewhat 'effeminate' in his mannerisms, or that he spoke freely in public of his being gay. It's why I agreed to be his sponsor. And probably why he asked me. Neither of us sensed any problem with there being any sexual prejudice.

However, as time passed, and we interacted more in the course of his sobriety and recovery, I began to become more and more uncomfortable being around him. And it wasn't because he was homosexual, or because he exhibited some effeminate mannerisms, or that he was open about his being gay in public. It was because, for him, being gay, and being an almost absurdly shallow, petty, materialistic, cliquish, sycophant were somehow inextricably linked. And from what I could see, many of his gay male friends were of a very similar character. And it was this particular personality paradigm that resonated so wrongly, with me.

It was too far beyond my grasp of human nature and modern culture to understand why or how being an openly gay man in this place and time in history had come to mean being shallow, petty, materialistic, cliquish, and sycophantic. But clearly it was a significant sub-cultural paradigm that he and others had fully embraced as their own. And I just couldn't "get with" that program.

Fortunately, the young man did stay clean and sober and is now quite the 'jet-set' entrepreneur; ... although doing exactly what, I have no clear understanding. There seems to be a whole subculture of "public relations" out there involving fashion and branding and who's who and who's on the rise and who wants to be seen with whom and he makes a pretty good living (and lifestyle) looking good and keeping these people, "happening". It's exactly the life I would have predicted for him, and that he would have found perfect for himself. And now it's his.

All completely superfluous and meaningless to those of us who are not in the "young, hip, gay, rich, oh-so-fashionable and important clique".

What I have never managed to figure out is how or why, in his mind (and in the minds of his friends) being a gay, male, "effeminate" personality translated into such a shallow and grotesque (in my opinion) character paradigm. It certainly was not 'feminine' by any meaning of that term that I would hold.

 

[firedragon]

In colloquial language, an effeminate man is a man who too much exhibits traits associated with women. And while being overly feminine in temperament can be a sign of effeminacy, in the scholastic tradition this is not what the word is intended to mean.

According to Aquinas, effeminacy is the vice of forsaking the good due to an inordinate attachment to pleasure. In other words, it is moral softness caused by indulgence. It is the inability to put aside what is pleasurable and easy in order to pursue what is good and worthwhile. According to Aquinas, effeminacy is a vice and it is opposed to the virtue of perseverance.

I think effeminacy is underappreciated as a problem, even in Christian circles. Indeed, I recall one Catholic blog calling effeminacy a 'forgotten vice'. And it is easy to see why in our times of unprecedented entertainment and distraction. I know I have been guilty of it on more occasions than I would like to count. Instead of spending my time in edifying study, or taking up physical exercise, or putting aside time for prayer; I have instead wasted countless hours playing video games, watching YouTube videos or lounging around doing nothing. Even though it is always in my mind that at any given time I could be accomplishing something of value, I have often instead shrunk from such aspirations out of an immediate preference for what is easy and pleasurable in the moment. This according to the angelic doctor is effeminacy and it is unbecoming of a Christian.

As for me, as a belated New Years' resolution, I take it upon myself to stamp this vice out from my life as much as possible. I want to put my time to good and worthwhile use. And while that does not mean cutting out all recreation from my life it does mean no longer allowing it to swallow up all of my free time. I have aspirations to learn multiple languages, to learn to compose music, to improve my physical health and of course to improve my spiritual standing before God. But to do these things I have to be willing deal with toil. I have to be willing to forsake immediate pleasures.

The Bible or rather Paul calls them Malakoi and lumps them with murderers, thieves, drunkards, homosexuals, and all of them dont inherit the kingdom of God apparently according to him.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

A lot of video games like game of thrones are very unhealthy.

Game of Thrones is a television show and a book series. Why is it unhealthy? It has dark themes, to be sure, but it doesn't glorify them. Quite the opposite.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I believe Aquinas derives his definition from Aristotle.

This is what inspired the thread.

Would it be fair to sum up the video in saying that to Aquinas this term is the opposite of perseverance? That seems to me what the video is saying. Among Catholics perseverance is considered a Christian virtue, so maybe he is saying "Lack of perseverance?" Isn't perseverance more than just resisting temptation? I thought it was about things like courage and energetic effort. On the other hand resisting temptation seems like it would fit, too.

 

[Brickjectivity]

It is quite easy to see how homosexuality is associated with effeminacy when you understand that the Romans held to disdain the man who received during sex.

I read somewhere that Hellenists considered male homo sex to be morally superior to hetero sex. Aquinus is a 9th century Dr. of the Church and need not be swayed by the Roman over the Greek. He may not be thinking about this at all like a modern homophobe would or as a Roman or as a Greek. In Greece a homosexual was considered macho. I think just going by the connotation of the root of the word 'Effeminacy' could mislead. It may have no significance unless the author Aquinus explains why he chooses it.

 

[Skywalker]

Game of Thrones is a television show and a book series. Why is it unhealthy? It has dark themes, to be sure, but it doesn't glorify them. Quite the opposite.

There are video games relating to it. Liking the story and overlooking the dark themes doesn't make it healthy.

 

[Skywalker]

I read somewhere that Hellenists considered male homo sex to be morally superior to hetero sex. Aquinus is a 9th century Dr. of the Church and need not be swayed by the Roman over the Greek. He may not be thinking about this at all like a modern homophobe would or as a Roman or as a Greek. In Greece a homosexual was considered macho. I think just going by the connotation of the root of the word 'Effinimism' could mislead. It may have no significance unless the author Aquinus explains why he chooses it.

The book of Romans wouldn't have mentioned homosexuality if it didn't exist in Roman culture.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Or perhaps instead to watching television it would be better to open a book, study something edifying, or perhaps interact with others in worthwhile conversation. Maybe work out even. Again, it's not that there should be no place for recreation, just that (mindless) recreation should be moderated. It's okay to play a video game. It is not okay to fret away an entire day before one though.

That sounds to me like someone prescribing how someone else should live. I'm not a fan of that sort of thing. I don't like to pretend I know what's best for anyone else, as I am never aware of their circumstances in totality.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

There are video games relating to it. Liking the story and overlooking the dark themes doesn't make it healthy.

I don't overlook the dark themes. I just don't see why dark themes are inherently unhealthy. Exploring dark themes is handled in literature up to and including the Bible.